Sunday, January 30, 2011
February 18: Attendee's Choice
There is no official topic tonight. We'll throw the session open to suggestion from the attendees and see where it goes. Come with your favorite question in mind, or go with the flow of conversation.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Mind/Body Dualism Revisited
In a post-meeting discussion last night I tried to explain why "normal" life experiences should be just as amazing as many of the exceptional experiences people seemed to want to use as examples of the mind/body problem. I must have failed to put the topic into proper context, because Pursig and myself both see the the experience of conscious mind inside a physical body as something of a miracle. So let me see if I can't make another run at setting up the problem.
The countertop in front of me is a physical object imbued with what I think most of us would agree to be no conscious event. A bucket of salty water is similarly without self-awareness. However, since humans are more like a bucket of salty water than we often realize, there is something going on inside us that makes consciousness happen. Something is happening that seems to go beyond what we understand physical materials have the capability to do, namely become self aware in the way we attribute human consciousness. How does that happen? Where does that happen? THAT was what I was trying to get us to contemplate.
The answer to this question generally falls into two camps. One we can call Physicalism, where the attribute of awareness is attributed to something like "complexity" of the constitution of the being. There are only physical phenomena happening and only one sort of thing exists, and that is the matter of the universe. From the primeval soup we have come, and of soup only are we. There is nothing more.
The second answer invokes a new substance, Mind, and gives it the attribute of consciousness. Mind is not physical. It does not have weight, shape, or location. It is somehow inside us, but not a part of us. At least not a part of us in the sense we can point to it and say "there it is!" We know that we have thoughts and we think we know our own thoughts intimately. Dualists would say that the thoughts are the stuff of Mind, since thoughts are similarly without mass or form. Dualists acknowledge the physical side, but invoke Mind to fill in the gap that seems to exist when talking about matter being animated and aware.
The problem has always been to reconcile the interaction between the physical and the mental realms. How can one affect the other? The common sense account is that our minds are the basis of our individuality and hold the keys to our personality and memories. The physical side is certainly involved, and is the path for sense experiences. Interaction with the environment comes to us through our senses, and rationality comes to us through our Mind. Dualists have to explain how these very different realms get together to form the whole that we are. Physicalists need to explain how physical phenomena only can lead to things like rational thought, awareness, and mental states. Traditionally they have had a hard time doing that.
In this environment are dreams insightful? Maybe. Dreams are usually thought of as being products of our sub-conscious mind, whatever that is. In an active and stimulated state we are awake and conscious. In an inactive and possibly sleeping state our conscious mind is inactive, but there is still some sort of trickle of activity which we call sub-conscious. Is this where dreams come from? If the answer is yes, then isn't this still just consciousness, in a reduced form? If the answer to that question is yes, then have we really gone anywhere with this line of reasoning?
Does the fact that drugs affect our mental states shed light on this problem? I think it does, and points towards Physicalism.
Are near death experiences relevant? I don't see how exactly since so many things may be happening that impact the physical system when the body is under extreme stress things are bound to be jumbled.
Is phylogeny helpful, since we are surrounded by creatures with different levels of complexity and different apparent amounts of awareness? I think phylogeny can offer hints that we can use to make a case but may not offer proof of anything. If you are Dualist looking at phylogenetic diversity, do you end up invoking some sort of Special Providence to explain why humans seemingly have more Mind than other animals? Would a Physicalist argue that human minds are the most developed, hence have the most awareness? The fossil record seems to show evidence of proto-conscious humanoid forms whose complexity may only have been some fractional part of current human brain development. This sort of phylogenetic thinking is really speculative, however, and does not seem to "prove" anything.
Does ontology provide any insights? I think it does. Human development from the egg to adult is marked with a clear physical development that includes things like development and maturation of the brain, and these developments can be tied to behavioral and cognitive traits that we attribute to consciousness. I think it makes a strong case for Physicalism. Could a Dualist claim that the Mind was present at one point of development and not another? How could that be defended?
We didn't do anything with the data identifying those in the group who tended toward Physicalism, and those towards Dualism. It might be interesting to contemplate this question:
What would it take in your own experience to sway you to the other side?
If you are a Physicalist, what life experience cold convince you that Dualism is the correct view?
If you are a Dualist, how could you be convinced that Physicalism is correct? Is there any way at all?
The countertop in front of me is a physical object imbued with what I think most of us would agree to be no conscious event. A bucket of salty water is similarly without self-awareness. However, since humans are more like a bucket of salty water than we often realize, there is something going on inside us that makes consciousness happen. Something is happening that seems to go beyond what we understand physical materials have the capability to do, namely become self aware in the way we attribute human consciousness. How does that happen? Where does that happen? THAT was what I was trying to get us to contemplate.
The answer to this question generally falls into two camps. One we can call Physicalism, where the attribute of awareness is attributed to something like "complexity" of the constitution of the being. There are only physical phenomena happening and only one sort of thing exists, and that is the matter of the universe. From the primeval soup we have come, and of soup only are we. There is nothing more.
The second answer invokes a new substance, Mind, and gives it the attribute of consciousness. Mind is not physical. It does not have weight, shape, or location. It is somehow inside us, but not a part of us. At least not a part of us in the sense we can point to it and say "there it is!" We know that we have thoughts and we think we know our own thoughts intimately. Dualists would say that the thoughts are the stuff of Mind, since thoughts are similarly without mass or form. Dualists acknowledge the physical side, but invoke Mind to fill in the gap that seems to exist when talking about matter being animated and aware.
The problem has always been to reconcile the interaction between the physical and the mental realms. How can one affect the other? The common sense account is that our minds are the basis of our individuality and hold the keys to our personality and memories. The physical side is certainly involved, and is the path for sense experiences. Interaction with the environment comes to us through our senses, and rationality comes to us through our Mind. Dualists have to explain how these very different realms get together to form the whole that we are. Physicalists need to explain how physical phenomena only can lead to things like rational thought, awareness, and mental states. Traditionally they have had a hard time doing that.
In this environment are dreams insightful? Maybe. Dreams are usually thought of as being products of our sub-conscious mind, whatever that is. In an active and stimulated state we are awake and conscious. In an inactive and possibly sleeping state our conscious mind is inactive, but there is still some sort of trickle of activity which we call sub-conscious. Is this where dreams come from? If the answer is yes, then isn't this still just consciousness, in a reduced form? If the answer to that question is yes, then have we really gone anywhere with this line of reasoning?
Does the fact that drugs affect our mental states shed light on this problem? I think it does, and points towards Physicalism.
Are near death experiences relevant? I don't see how exactly since so many things may be happening that impact the physical system when the body is under extreme stress things are bound to be jumbled.
Is phylogeny helpful, since we are surrounded by creatures with different levels of complexity and different apparent amounts of awareness? I think phylogeny can offer hints that we can use to make a case but may not offer proof of anything. If you are Dualist looking at phylogenetic diversity, do you end up invoking some sort of Special Providence to explain why humans seemingly have more Mind than other animals? Would a Physicalist argue that human minds are the most developed, hence have the most awareness? The fossil record seems to show evidence of proto-conscious humanoid forms whose complexity may only have been some fractional part of current human brain development. This sort of phylogenetic thinking is really speculative, however, and does not seem to "prove" anything.
Does ontology provide any insights? I think it does. Human development from the egg to adult is marked with a clear physical development that includes things like development and maturation of the brain, and these developments can be tied to behavioral and cognitive traits that we attribute to consciousness. I think it makes a strong case for Physicalism. Could a Dualist claim that the Mind was present at one point of development and not another? How could that be defended?
We didn't do anything with the data identifying those in the group who tended toward Physicalism, and those towards Dualism. It might be interesting to contemplate this question:
What would it take in your own experience to sway you to the other side?
If you are a Physicalist, what life experience cold convince you that Dualism is the correct view?
If you are a Dualist, how could you be convinced that Physicalism is correct? Is there any way at all?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
January 21 Topic: Mind/Brain Duality
It is time to pick up one of the topics we've been reading in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZAMM) by Robert Pirsig. There are LOTS to choose from, so let me see if I can find one that can lead into several others.
One that has been popular with philosophers for generations is the problem that exists between what seems to be a physical world around us and what seems to be a non-physical entity inside us, which is our mind. The existence of a non-physical but seemingly real thing like a mind (or consciousness, if you prefer) doesn't seem like a problem, except when you try and explain how a non-physical thing interacts with a physical thing like your body. How does that happen, exactly?
We have absolute knowledge of our minds, right? We think, and we know the contents of those thoughts intimately. We aspire, dream, fear, worry, and have all sorts of innate and internal conversations with ourselves that form our personal space, our personality, and by some accounts, creates the human experience. How can we translate that sort of experience into a description of what is happening inside our bodies? Is this just a complex series of chemical reactions? Does it happen at nerve endings and nerve connections? Is it related to the proteins in our cells? What?
Some have concluded that the essence of our mind is something like a Spirit, or non-physical entity that somehow comes from outside our bodies. Others have suggested that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity, and that sufficiently complex systems will eventually become conscious. This is the basis of the experience of Ewa in the movie Avatar, where the planet is "alive" in a way that is above and beyond the simple fact of being host to plants and animals. The Mother Earth idea writ large, as it were.
It is hard to escape the idea that each of us represents the entirety of what we are; that all we are is composed of what we can see in the bathroom mirror when we step out of the shower. How can there be more than our physical bodies? It is the Identity Theory applied to people: Bob = Bob. How can it be that Bob = Bob + Mind? The Mind part is already implied and included in the idea of Bob.
Mind/Body dualism. A perennially puzzling problem.
One that has been popular with philosophers for generations is the problem that exists between what seems to be a physical world around us and what seems to be a non-physical entity inside us, which is our mind. The existence of a non-physical but seemingly real thing like a mind (or consciousness, if you prefer) doesn't seem like a problem, except when you try and explain how a non-physical thing interacts with a physical thing like your body. How does that happen, exactly?
We have absolute knowledge of our minds, right? We think, and we know the contents of those thoughts intimately. We aspire, dream, fear, worry, and have all sorts of innate and internal conversations with ourselves that form our personal space, our personality, and by some accounts, creates the human experience. How can we translate that sort of experience into a description of what is happening inside our bodies? Is this just a complex series of chemical reactions? Does it happen at nerve endings and nerve connections? Is it related to the proteins in our cells? What?
Some have concluded that the essence of our mind is something like a Spirit, or non-physical entity that somehow comes from outside our bodies. Others have suggested that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity, and that sufficiently complex systems will eventually become conscious. This is the basis of the experience of Ewa in the movie Avatar, where the planet is "alive" in a way that is above and beyond the simple fact of being host to plants and animals. The Mother Earth idea writ large, as it were.
It is hard to escape the idea that each of us represents the entirety of what we are; that all we are is composed of what we can see in the bathroom mirror when we step out of the shower. How can there be more than our physical bodies? It is the Identity Theory applied to people: Bob = Bob. How can it be that Bob = Bob + Mind? The Mind part is already implied and included in the idea of Bob.
Mind/Body dualism. A perennially puzzling problem.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
America's 4 Gods - Dec 10
The November meeting was quite enjoyable. The topic wasn't really clear to me, but was generally, what is our essential self and where does it come from? We talked about Nature vs Nuture, does our personality change over our lifetimes, how does our personality persist inside our ever changing bodies, and similar topics. With 14 adults attending, and 2 of them 1st timers, it was a good sized group.
We talked briefly about ZAMM, and how reading it is going among the attendees. Several were about half though it. It was mentioned that Upper Case Books has copies in Snohomish. I don't plan on picking up topics until January, so if you are planning to read it over the holidays, you still have plenty of time. I am reading a Kindle version this time.
I mentioned a recent review in the Times concerning America's 4 Gods. The review was fairly short, but the polls used by the authors seem to point pout a pattern of belief that resolves itself into four basic profiles for the concept of God. There are interesting descriptions and examples of how people conceive and interact with their personal God. As we have been dealing with this several times in the recent past I thought this might make for a good topic. I will try and post some facts and topics in this space prior to the meeint on Dec 10.
Please note the date. December is a tough month for meetings as there are lots of things happening. We will go early.
We talked briefly about ZAMM, and how reading it is going among the attendees. Several were about half though it. It was mentioned that Upper Case Books has copies in Snohomish. I don't plan on picking up topics until January, so if you are planning to read it over the holidays, you still have plenty of time. I am reading a Kindle version this time.
I mentioned a recent review in the Times concerning America's 4 Gods. The review was fairly short, but the polls used by the authors seem to point pout a pattern of belief that resolves itself into four basic profiles for the concept of God. There are interesting descriptions and examples of how people conceive and interact with their personal God. As we have been dealing with this several times in the recent past I thought this might make for a good topic. I will try and post some facts and topics in this space prior to the meeint on Dec 10.
Please note the date. December is a tough month for meetings as there are lots of things happening. We will go early.
Friday, October 29, 2010
BQ Summary and Future Agenda
The meeting in September left me a little cold. Let's leave it at that.
A small group met in October without a pre-arranged topic, and chose What is Friendship? The discussion was lively and long lasting. The group broke up at 10:30, which long time attendees will recognize as being long past normal. With 7 people visiting and an overall group size of 10, I considered this to be about perfect. That, and Gordon brought 2 half-gallons of ice cream to share for dessert!
We chose to re-read (for most of us) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pursig. I am about half way through it again, just at the point where they are about to reach Bozeman, where he is talking about Phaedrus in the High Country of the Mind. This is the part that most people find least interesting. Classical and Romantic Thinking. Rational justification of ideas. Locke. Empiricism and Rationalism. The futility of the scientific method. Where do hypotheses come from? Neitze and the logical positivists.
This is brain bending stuff and not what I call intuitive at all. I'm not sure what I can do with this when it comes time for the discussion, so if any of you have ideas I'd love to hear them. Shortly Pursig shifts into the idea of the Good - What is Good, and all that. I find that part quite interesting, and I know what to do with it. Do we just ignore the preamble then, and concentrate on what we can grasp?
November's gathering will be on the 12th. It is early to make way for the things that will be happening later in the month. No topic is planned - we will pick one at the time of the gathering. ZAMM will not have been finished by many people by then, I don't think, so let's hold off until after the first of the year to make a topic out of it.
A small group met in October without a pre-arranged topic, and chose What is Friendship? The discussion was lively and long lasting. The group broke up at 10:30, which long time attendees will recognize as being long past normal. With 7 people visiting and an overall group size of 10, I considered this to be about perfect. That, and Gordon brought 2 half-gallons of ice cream to share for dessert!
We chose to re-read (for most of us) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pursig. I am about half way through it again, just at the point where they are about to reach Bozeman, where he is talking about Phaedrus in the High Country of the Mind. This is the part that most people find least interesting. Classical and Romantic Thinking. Rational justification of ideas. Locke. Empiricism and Rationalism. The futility of the scientific method. Where do hypotheses come from? Neitze and the logical positivists.
This is brain bending stuff and not what I call intuitive at all. I'm not sure what I can do with this when it comes time for the discussion, so if any of you have ideas I'd love to hear them. Shortly Pursig shifts into the idea of the Good - What is Good, and all that. I find that part quite interesting, and I know what to do with it. Do we just ignore the preamble then, and concentrate on what we can grasp?
November's gathering will be on the 12th. It is early to make way for the things that will be happening later in the month. No topic is planned - we will pick one at the time of the gathering. ZAMM will not have been finished by many people by then, I don't think, so let's hold off until after the first of the year to make a topic out of it.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What is Happiness?
The topic for Sept 24 will be, What is Happiness? What makes you happy? Why does it make you happy? Are there things that make you more happy? Less happy? What are the degrees of happiness, and why would there be different levels? Is the "pursuit of happiness" a right we all share?
What is the opposite of happiness? Sadness? Anger? Disappointment? Frustration? Apathy? Indifference? Is there an opposite?
Come and explore this interesting and seemingly common sense topic. I think you may find that there is more to Happiness than you might think!
Desmond
What is the opposite of happiness? Sadness? Anger? Disappointment? Frustration? Apathy? Indifference? Is there an opposite?
Come and explore this interesting and seemingly common sense topic. I think you may find that there is more to Happiness than you might think!
Desmond
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
September 24 - Next Meeting
As the summer winds down and the "regular" schedule starts to fall into place, it is time to add back in into our schedules things like Big Questions. I have selected the evening of Friday, Sept. 24, as the kick-off night for the 2010-11 season. My travel schedule remains faily full, but this is a night where I think things will work out. I will be in Utah during the week, but I will probably have a topic in mind by the time I show up for the BQ session. In the meantime, feel free to offer suggestions for quesitons in the comment area below.
Sessions are planned for the remainder of the year. Currently the dates are:
October 15
November 12
December 10
Pot-luck dinner starts at 6:30, with discussions at 8:00. We will wind up at 9:30 to 10:00. There will be one big group. If you need directions to the house, call the EUUF Office or send me an email.
Sessions are planned for the remainder of the year. Currently the dates are:
October 15
November 12
December 10
Pot-luck dinner starts at 6:30, with discussions at 8:00. We will wind up at 9:30 to 10:00. There will be one big group. If you need directions to the house, call the EUUF Office or send me an email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)